Texto: As if
there weren’t enough crises to worry about in the world already, from shooting
rampages to accelerating species loss, the US and NATO continue to ‘poke the
bear’ and risk an outbreak of war with Russia.

I wish this were
idle speculation. But if you haven’t been paying close attention, you'll probably
be shocked at just how much direct military and diplomatic provocation has been
going on between NATO/US and Russia over the past several years -- and in
recent weeks, in particular.

Even more
shocking is that no one in power can provide us with a compelling reason for
exactly why these tensions are flaring. It seems that Russia’s main sin is in
not entirely, completely and immediately giving the US/NATO anything and
everything they request.

In other words,
it’s imperial hubris and petulance that seems to be driving the ship of state.
That’s a dangerous thing.

I’ve written
extensively on the dangers of war with Russia as my concerns have mounted ever
since the situation in Ukraine devolved in 2014.

There have been
plenty of chances to dial down the rhetoric and mend fences, but they've all
come and gone without healing. In fact, as we detail below, quite the opposite
has happened.

The bottom line
is this: If you're not already mentally and physically prepared for the
prospect of a NATO/US war with Russia, you really should be.

Perhaps the
chances of outright war are still low on a relative scale, but the costs would
be catastrophically high -- making this worthy of your attention. A low risk of
a catastrophic outcome is the very reason we all buy insurance – life, auto,
and home. Not because we wish things to
go wrong in our lives, but because they sometimes do nonetheless.

A Russian Warning

The list of
aggressive provocations by NATO that have been received as belligerent acts by
Russia is quite long. It stretches back several years and continues to grow
rapidly, making the chance for an ‘accident’ or unplanned incident quite high.

I was impressed
with a recent piece penned and signed by eight prominent writers and blogger
with Russian heritage. Titled A Russian Warning, it ran on a wide variety of
blogs knowledgeable about the Russian situation including Dmitry Orlov’s and
The Saker’s. I encourage you to read the whole thing. Right now, if you've got
the time. I can wait.

To cut to the
chase, the harsh conclusion of the piece is this: “If there is going to be a
war with Russia, then the United States will most certainly be destroyed, and
most of us will end up dead.”

Russia is, of
course, a major nuclear power with a long history of surviving being attacked
by outsiders. But for some reason, US/NATO military and diplomatic efforts have
all been geared at further encroaching upon and/or isolating Russia.

They note:

The US leadership
has done everything it could to push the situation to the brink of disaster.
First, its anti-Russian policies have convinced the Russian leadership that
making concessions or negotiating with the West is futile. It has become
apparent that the West will always support any individual, movement or
government that is anti-Russian, be it tax-cheating Russian oligarchs,
convicted Ukrainian war criminals, Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists in
Chechnya or cathedral-desecrating punks in Moscow.

Now that NATO, in
violation of its previous promises, has expanded right up to the Russian
border, with US forces deployed in the Baltic states, within artillery range of
St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, the Russians have nowhere left to
retreat. They will not attack; nor will they back down or surrender.

Imagine for a
moment that Russia had positioned its military less than 100 miles from New
York City and installed armored battalions with artillery. How would we in the
US respond to that provocation? Probably with outrage, anger and defiance --
and rightly so. So why are we expecting Russia to act any differently?

The conclusion:

The sole reason
why the USA and Russia have found themselves on a collision course, instead of
defusing tensions and cooperating on a wide range of international problems, is
the stubborn refusal by the US leadership to accept Russia as an equal partner:
Washington is dead set on being the “world leader” and the “indispensable
nation,” even as its influence steadily dwindles in the wake of a string of
foreign policy and military disasters such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Yemen and the Ukraine.

Continued
American global leadership is something that neither Russia, nor China, nor
most of the other countries are willing to accept. This gradual but apparent
loss of power and influence has caused the US leadership to become hysterical;
and it is but a small step from hysterical to suicidal. America’s political
leaders need to be placed under suicide watch.

The summary here
is that Russia feels surrounded by an increasingly belligerent NATO/US military
presence. It can find little common ground with diplomats from NATO generally
and the US specifically. If fully backed into a corner, once it perceives it is
out of other options, Russia will defend herself. I’m not sure how anybody
could deny or begrudge her that right.

If the West,
meaning the US and Europe, decide to further goad Russia, war is likely
inevitable. (I'm leaning heavily here on the historically-dependable formula:
Time + Shit Happens = Conflict). Sooner
or later, Russia will have to switch from response mode to reaction mode. I’ve
written about that precition here, here and here.

The Provocations
– Neocon Central

Here’s a very
short and incomplete list of the provocations that have been undertaken against
Russia. Again, just try to imagine what the reaction would be by the West were
the roles reversed:

You get the idea:
both sides are settling into a pattern of escalating responses. The trajectory
is alarming.

What's alarming
is the above selection of headlines is a miniscule sampling of the possible
ones I could have picked. The evidence is everywhere.

Now let’s fast
forward to 2016 where things are really heating up.

2016

The US and NATO
have been putting increasing emphasis on placing more military hardware and
training exercises in the Baltic and Black seas as well as the Mediterranean
ocean. In one incident, Russian jets
flew within yards of a key US naval asset over and over again in a provocation
that John Kerry said the US “would have been justified” in shooting those jets
down.

U.S. issues
formal protest to Russia over Baltic Sea incident

Apr 14, 2016

(CNN) White House
Press Secretary Josh Earnest says the U.S. Embassy in Moscow has communicated
formal concerns to the Russian government about the incident in the Baltic Sea
this week in which fighter jets flew very close to the USS Donald Cook.

A U.S. official
described the Russian maneuver as "strafing runs" without firing any
weapons. The unarmed Russian aircraft swooped in over the deck in the same
flight profile that would have been used if an attack was underway.

And, no, the US
would not have been justified in shooting down those Russian jets. Kerry is
being clearly belligerent with that statement.

A more level
response comes to us from a retired Navy commanding officer:

“Well, we’re not
at war with Russia," Capt. Rick Hoffman said. "It would be one thing
to be operating and have a threatening attack profile from someone who might
not recognize me — that’s not the case here.”

If you have
visual identification of the jet, can see it isn't carrying weapons, and don't
detect any electronic emissions suggesting there was a missile lock on the
ship, there's nothing to be done.

And ultimately,
the rules of engagement allow the CO to take defensive action if they feel they
safety of their vessel is in danger, according to U.S. European Command
spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez told Navy Times. In this case the CO did not
feel threatened, he added.

"You don’t
get to kill people just because they’re being annoying," said Hoffman, who
commanded frigate DeWert and cruiser Hue City.

(Source – Navy
Times)

Thankfully there
are saner minds in the military, even if the State Department is itching for a
fight.

Which brings us
to the most insane head scratcher of them all.

State Department
Loses Its Cool

In yesterday’s
Wall Street Journal (6/16/2016) came the bizarre revelation that 51 internal
State Department officials signed a document protesting Obama’s lack of direct
military engagement with Assad’s government forces in Syria:

U.S. State
Department Officials Call for Strikes Against Syria’s Assad

Jun 16, 2016

BEIRUT—Dozens of
State Department officials this week protested against U.S. policy in Syria,
signing an internal document that calls for targeted military strikes against
the Damascus government and urging regime change as the only way to defeat
Islamic State.

The “dissent
channel cable” was signed by 51 State Department officers involved with
advising on Syria policy in various capacities, according to an official
familiar with the document. The Wall Street Journal reviewed a copy of the
cable, which repeatedly calls for “targeted military strikes” against the
Syrian government in light of the near-collapse of the ceasefire brokered
earlier this year.

Now just reflect
on that a moment. But as you do, be sure to recall that Russia is fighting
alongside Assad’s forces. In other words, these State Department officials are
asking for military action to be taken against Syria's allied forces fighting
to preserve the current government’s hold on power.

In other words,
there are 51 insane people (a least) in the US State Department that think
attacking Russia directly would be a swell idea. All in the interest of
promoting a foreign policy of regime change that has not worked out well in the
Mideast countries where we've recently tried it. Iraq and Libya are unmitigated
disasters, especially for the citizens left living with the aftermath.

I would certainly
love to know the names of those 52 individuals. I'd bet good money that the
list is heavily stocked with neocons.

Also be sure to
recall that Russia moved the s400 antiaircraft missile system into Syria last
year. This battery is widely respected and feared by pilots due to its enormous
reach:

So not only are
these State Department folks agitating for direct military engagement with
Russian forces by agitating for US airstrikes against Syrian targets, they are
seemingly either unaware of or uncaring about the extreme risk US pilots would
face in trying such a move.

Most likely the
US would lose a fair number of planes if such action was attempted. I suspect,
though, that would play to the hands of the neocons at State. Dead heroes would
provide exactly the sort of justification they’d need to expand the war they’ve
been itching for all along.

But just in case
a regular shooting war doesn't break out, NATO is busy laying the groundwork to
justify one along other channels.

Expanding the
Definition of “War”

Recently, NATO
has expanded the definition of "war". Let’s remember that NATO exists
as a collective defense treaty organization. An attack on one member country is
treated an attack on all. NATO allies
are obligated to come to each other’s defense.

Here’s the
language:

Collective
defence - Article 5

(Last updated Mar
2016)

The principle of
collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a
unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them
to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

Collective
defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack
against all Allies.

The principle of
collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

NATO invoked
Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks
against the United States.

NATO has taken
collective defence measures on several occasions, for instance in response to
the situation in Syria and in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

NATO has standing
forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence
efforts on a permanent basis.

Now you and I
might think that, if one member nation were invaded, that would meet the
definition of “war”. But NATO, clearly not happy with that limitation, has
recently proposed expanding that to include – get this – cyberwarfare:

NATO adds cyber
to operation areas

Jun 14, 2016

BRUSSELS (AP) —
NATO agreed Tuesday to make cyber operations part of its war domain, along with
air, sea and land operations, and to beef up the defense of its computer
networks.

NATO
Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the decision to formally consider cyber
operations a military domain is not aimed at any one country. He says the allies
need to be able to better defend themselves and respond to attacks on their
computer networks.

The decision has
been long in coming, particularly amid rising tensions with Russia, which has
proven its willingness to launch computer-based attacks against other nations.

Russian hackers
have been blamed for a breach into an unclassified Pentagon computer network
and for a breach of NATO's computer network two years ago.

In 2014, after
years of debate, NATO finally agreed that a cyberattack could rise to the level
of a military assault and could trigger the Article 5 protections, which allow
the alliance to go to the collective defense of another member that has been
attacked.

Got that? Now a cyberattack could be used as
justification to invoke Article V and bind everyone to engage the enemy in an
actual 'boots on the ground' war.

Now that makes
sense on some level. After all if a hostile nation took down your electrical
grid by a cyberattack (which is entirely possible, by the way), that would be a
threat to national security.

But in this world
of electronic cat and mouse, creating a false-flag cyberattack that seems to
originate from a hostile country could be initiated from anywhere, including
the “attacked” country. But the time all
that had been sorted out, the bullets would likely have already been flying.

Conclusion

OK, that was a
lot to read through. Thanks for persisting to this point. The punchline to it
all is: War with Russia is a distinct possibility, and US and NATO are
increasing that risk through escalating provocation.

Should a war
break out, it could be along a variety of dimensions which are outlined in Part
II below.

For now, it
should be (hopefully) sufficient for you to take the threat seriously and to make
whatever provisions seem prudent to you. To my European readers, such
preparations seem even more necessary because you will be close to the front
lines of any direct, conventional hostilities that break out.

TIEMPOS DE OSCURIDAD

"The past century has seen a counter-revolution against the Enlightenment, classical economics and its culmination in socialist hopes to steer industrial capitalism to evolve into democratic socialism. What is occurring today is a self-destructive financial dynamic of impoverishment, dependency and breakdown in many ways like what happened when Rome’s creditor oligarchy plunged the Empire into the Dark Age two thousand years ago. The post-feudal real estate and financial oligarchies, the landed aristocracies of Europe and the great banking families and American trust builders have made a comeback, and the New Cold War is intended to lock in their victory. Ukraine is simply the latest battlefield, and battlefields end up devastated."